McCain "In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations." Hypocrite or stupid

[e-brake]

In recent days, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) rhetoric toward Russia has mostly been overblown bluster, including an accusation that the country wanted to restore its old empire. However, since a cease-fire was announced and his predictions were proven wrong, McCain has backtracked, saying there won’t be a Cold War. To justify his new position, he told reporters in a press conference today:

In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.

McCain says nations don't invade other nations

Close

You need to upgrade your Flash Player

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by e-brake

In recent days, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) rhetoric toward Russia has mostly been overblown bluster, including an accusation that the country wanted to restore its old empire. However, since a cease-fire was announced and his predictions were proven wrong, McCain has backtracked, saying there won’t be a Cold War. To justify his new position, he told reporters in a press conference today:

In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.

Good lord Kevin its common knowledge that Putin has been making every effort to reassemble as much of the lost empire as he can get his grubby hands on. Its anything but bluster to say it publically - its simply true. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/we...ew/14myer.html) from 2004...

Since the announcement of the cease fire the Russians simply ignored it, taken up positions to blockade ports and cut off the east west highway as well as cut off Tblisi.

This won't be another cold war because the Russian military can't compete with ours.... yet.

I have no clue why you found these comments odd. What Russia did was invade... that's not polite. For McCain to make that point seems fair.

[e-brake]

Originally Posted by xian

Good lord Kevin its common knowledge that Putin has been making every effort to reassemble as much of the lost empire as he can get his grubby hands on. Its anything but bluster to say it publically - its simply true. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/we...ew/14myer.html) from 2004...

Since the announcement of the cease fire the Russians simply ignored it, taken up positions to blockade ports and cut off the east west highway as well as cut off Tblisi.

This won't be another cold war because the Russian military can't compete with ours.... yet.

I have no clue why you found these comments odd. What Russia did was invade... that's not polite. For McCain to make that point seems fair.

The comment that I found laughable was
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."

This from the guy who has spent the last 8 years pushing for and endorcing the invasion and occupation of two nations IN THE 21st CENTURY

Apperently once again McCain would not vote for McCain in an election.

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by e-brake

The comment that I found laughable was
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."

This from the guy who has spent the last 8 years pushing for and endorcing the invasion and occupation of two nations IN THE 21st CENTURY

Apperently once again McCain would not vote for McCain in an election.

Allow me to distinguish the two situations for you....

Russia wasn't attacked by terrorists with airplanes who had declared war on the great Satan. So, invading Afganistan was invading a state that was supporting the group that attacked us and declared war on us. Iraq, how many times did Russia go to the UN before attacking? Was Georgia currently violating a cease-fire agreement that it had w/Russia and the UN? Did the leader of Georgia hatch a plot to assassinate Putin? Did we go into Iraq to restore lost territory to our sovereign control? Kevin there is no comparison that passes the giggle test if you really compare the events in Georgia to the event in Afganistan and Iraq. Its one thing to not support our decision to go in but quite another to consider it on par with Russia invading Georgia.... because it isn't even close.

[e-brake]

Originally Posted by xian

Allow me to distinguish the two situations for you....

Russia wasn't attacked by terrorists with airplanes who had declared war on the great Satan. So, invading Afganistan was invading a state that was supporting the group that attacked us and declared war on us. Iraq, how many times did Russia go to the UN before attacking? Was Georgia currently violating a cease-fire agreement that it had w/Russia and the UN? Did the leader of Georgia hatch a plot to assassinate Putin? Did we go into Iraq to restore lost territory to our sovereign control? Kevin there is no comparison that passes the giggle test if you really compare the events in Georgia to the event in Afganistan and Iraq. Its one thing to not support our decision to go in but quite another to consider it on par with Russia invading Georgia.... because it isn't even close.

So then your saying that we never invaded or occupied Iraq? McCain never said anything about the UN, or terrorists....he stated as a matter of fact that "Nations do not invade other nations in the 21st century" and said the same for occupying nations.

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by e-brake

So then your saying that we never invaded or occupied Iraq? McCain never said anything about the UN, or terrorists....he stated as a matter of fact that "Nations do not invade other nations in the 21st century" and said the same for occupying nations.

I'm saying the situations are remarkably different and it is mere sophistry to compare the two.

This is an example of "gotcha" bullshit and nothing more Kevin.

If there was substance then the circumstances surrounding the events would need to be analogous. You're hanging your hat on a single word which you then amplify (or rather reduce) to meaning something much less than what it really meant.

You know he was using the term in the sense that I described.... invading not for defense but for territorial expansion etc.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by xian

I'm saying the situations are remarkably different and it is mere sophistry to compare the two.

This is an example of "gotcha" bullshit and nothing more Kevin.

If there was substance then the circumstances surrounding the events would need to be analogous. You're hanging your hat on a single word which you then amplify (or rather reduce) to meaning something much less than what it really meant.

You know he was using the term in the sense that I described.... invading not for defense but for territorial expansion etc.

Territorial expansion like securing Iraq's reserves for our supply?

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by tricky

Territorial expansion like securing Iraq's reserves for our supply?

Tricky, you cannot possibly believe we are stealing Iraqi oil can you?

Its true we're securing the oil.... for the world market not for our control.

Territorial expansion as in reassembling one's empire. Iraq was never part of our "empire." You really think Putin would permit open elections in Georgia? etc etc etc these are very different events - to compare them is to make a very large blind spot. Deposing a dictator like Saddam is a good thing... invading a democratic country to take it over... not so much.